The lives of fifteenth century monarchs were perilous and full of surprises. Two countries in particular, Scotland and England, saw during this period a succession of kings. Some of these reigns were to end in success, while others were destined for complete failure. James III of Scotland and Richard III of England were two such examples. Both monarchs saw themselves deposed during their reign. While James III managed to return to power for another several years, Richard III was not so lucky. There are many reasons cited for these depositions, some more plausible than others, and these will examined in further detail.

            Before discussing the reasons for overthrowing a reigning monarch, one must first examine how they initially came into power. In the case of James III, his rise to power would be what historians may call the ‘traditional’ way, in that he succeeded his father, James II, upon his death in 1460. At this time, James III was a minority and became entangled in a web of intrigue and power plays from those persons charged with looking after him. Eventually, in 1466, James III entered into his majority and took over the reigns of government for himself. Unfortunately, as it will be shown, he did not succeed in this endeavor. As Norman MacDougall points out, “…James III failed not because of his policies – many of which would be adopted by his popular son – but because of his personality.” [1] After his deposition on 22 July 1482[2] at Lauder, James III regained control of the monarchy just a few months later on 29 September 1482[3] and retained his tenuous hold for just six more years before being killed near Bannockburn on 11 June 1488.

            On the other hand, Richard III usurped the position of king from his nephew, Edward V, while in the role of protector for the minor king. He argued that it would be unjust to crown Edward, as he was illegitimate due to the fact that his father, Edward IV, had already been betrothed to another woman when he married Elizabeth Woodville, Edward V’s mother.[4] Richard then seized the young Edward V and his brother Richard, duke of York, and had his two princely nephews confined to the Tower of London; sometime later, as it is popularly believed, Richard had the two boys executed. Richard III became king on 26 June 1483[5].  However, his reign was not to last long. Due to rebellions and conspiracies, Richard III lost both his crown and life at the battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485,[6] having been king for only two years. With such a short reign, it is difficult to conclude what kind of long term monarch he would have made. However, as James Gairdner states, it cannot “be doubted that one so competent to rule might have reigned for a long time unmolested if he had not already lost the confidence of his people by acts of treachery and violence.”[7]

From the differing origins of these two monarchs, it is intriguing to discover that they were fated for the same destination. Both kings have much common as to why they were inevitably deposed. The first explanation is that both James III and Richard III were prone to granting titles and lands to their favorite counsellors, or to simply buy allegiances and friendships from those who might otherwise desert the crown. As MacDougal writes: “from the beginning of James III’s personal rule, we may trace the growth of a party of royal familiars whose favour with the king was demonstrated in a remarkable series of royal grants.”[8] He liked to grant titles and lands to his lowly-born counsellors, some of which were deserved, and many others that were not, at the expense and disregard of his nobility. Grants to servants cannot, however, “obscure the fact that the king’s treatment of lands and offices was arbitrary in the extreme, and that he displayed a confidence in this respect which suggests an unshakeable belief in the exalted status of a Stewart monarch.”[9] James III was often accused of illegally seizing land that had already been granted to another and bestowing it upon a different recipient. This did not inspire popularity amongst the people.

Richard III likewise had this problem of trying to buy support from the nobility. After the rumour began to circulate that he had murdered his nephews in the Tower of London, his popularity plummeted drastically. To ensure continuing support, Richard granted titles and lands to those persons whom he knew would otherwise withdraw their support from the crown and instead turn toward his enemies. “It is a remarkable evidence of Richard’s weakness, and of the policy by which with large gifts he procured for himself unsteadfast [sic] friendships, that a considerable number of persons attainted in Parliament received at a later date pardons under the Great Seal.”[10]

This idea of pardoning guilty parties at a later date is mirrored by James III as well. One key example of this lies with James’s brother, the duke of Albany. Around 1479, James III arrested his two brothers, John, earl of Mar and Alexander, duke of Albany. Mar died under suspicious circumstances and Albany fled to France, and then eventually to England. He was later the instigator of the coup that captured James III at Lauder in 1482. After the king was freed and returned to power, James III pardoned his brother, who had attempted to usurp the throne, and returned his title of duke of Albany, as well as granting him the very important office of Warden of the Marches.[11]

While James may have eventually pardoned Albany, it must be pointed out that his mistrust of kin, similar to that of Richard III’s, was what caused Albany to flee to France in the first place. These two kings both showed a paranoia towards their familial relations which resulted in their deaths. In the case of James III, he “was the first Scottish king since Robert III to have surviving brothers, and close to him in age.”[12] This may have led him to believe that his two brothers would always be after his throne, which is why he had them arrested on the grounds of suspected treason. Furthermore, although never proven, his brother the earl of Mar died under extremely suspicious circumstances, and was most likely killed by order of the king. Before the same fate could befall the duke of Albany, he left Scotland, a fugitive.

This intense mistrust and disregard for kin is seen most blatantly with Richard III and his nephews. Whether he set out to dispose of them from the very beginning or whether he saw an opportunity and took it is not fully understood. What is known, however, is that while acting under the office of protector, Richard had Edward V imprisoned in the Tower of London. He later convinced Elizabeth Woodville, the dowager queen, to send her other son Richard to the Tower to be with his brother.[13] The events that transpired in the Tower have never been fully explained, but it is thought that Richard III had both of his nephews murdered towards the close of the summer of 1483[14] and buried somewhere within the Tower confines. This is the ultimate example of disdain and mistrust of kin.

Another commonality between both James III and Richard III was their use of taxation. James III had grandiose plans to lead an army early in his reign to invade Brittany, acquire the Duchy of Gueldres, and to obtain the cession to Scotland of the French county of Saintonge.[15] In order to accomplish these tasks, he was forced to levy extraordinary taxation in parliament. Of course, these entreaties came to nothing and James III never realized any of these plans. However, when he intended to marry his sister Margaret to Anthony, earl of Rivers of England, he again turned to taxation to pay for his plans. Once more, this event never came to fruition. Finally, James III was again forced to turn to taxation when war with England became inevitable. Yet again, these taxes were not forthcoming. Therefore, although on six occasions – 1472, 1473, 1479, 1482, 1485 and 1487[16] – James III attempted to gain money through taxation and failed, it nevertheless placed much of the nobility at odds with the king.

Similarly, Richard III was to turn to taxation in order to raise much needed money to pay for what appeared to be imminent war with France. The small difference in this case is that Richard was not calling this tax a ‘benevolence’, or a forced gift; rather, he was proclaiming that this was to be a loan to the crown, and he intended to pay back all the money that was collected. What made this decision to tax even worse was that at the beginning of his reign, he had introduced a statute essentially outlawing the practice of benevolence. Therefore, this requested tax “was not a breach of the law, for it was not a benevolence. But, unfortunately, by the passing of that law Richard had released his subjects from the dread of any such unpleasant demands, and the application was, therefore, all the more unpopular.”[17]

Anglo-Scottish warfare had become a traditional practice in the fifteenth century. However, James III set out to end this during his reign. He broke the Franco-Scottish alliance and began talks with King Edward IV of England for peace. In 1474 a peace agreement was made between Scotland and England, as well as a betrothal between Prince James of Scotland and Princess Cecilia of England on 26 October 1474.[18] This was not popular with the Scottish people, especially those located in the borders, “…for there the English alliance meant an end to the intermittent border warfare to which many had long been accustomed; and those southern lords and their adherents who now faced the prospect of strong action against them by their own monarch if they continued making raids into England must have viewed the diplomatic revolution of 1474 with alarm.”[19]

Although the peace treaty of 1474 was made under Edward IV, Richard III was likewise moved to garner peace with Scotland. In September of 1484, “a three years’ truce was concluded, and immediately after a treaty of marriage between the Duke of Rothesay, the Scotch king’s eldest son, and Richard’s niece, Anne De la Pole, daughter of the Duke of Suffolk.”[20] In the end, this match was never completed, as it was broken off after the death of Richard III at Bosworth Field in 1485.

This is where the similarities of James III and Richard III end. As many characteristics as both monarchs had in common, they also differed in many ways. One difference which exists between these two kings is where building and patronages are concerned. While it has been claimed by some historians that James III was a king who enjoyed the arts and literature more than governing his kingdom, he did not demonstrate this trait very well. In fact, he continually hoarded money and did not successfully build any lasting monuments during the twenty-six years of his reign. When he was taken prisoner at Lauder, he was carrying with him the large sum of £146[21], and likewise when he was killed near Bannockburn, they found with his possessions a large chest full of money.

Meanwhile, while only remaining in power for two years, Richard III had the occasion to not only endow Queen’s College, Cambridge with a rental of 500 marks per year, but also founded a college of priests beside the church of All Hallows Barking near the Tower of London; at York he founded a chantry of no less than a hundred chaplains in the cathedral, and he also founded a college at Middleham.[22] In addition to these foundations, Richard III had an affinity for building. As Gairdner states: “His taste in building was magnificent and princely. He erected a high stone tower at Westminster and some new buildings in the Tower of London; built the Castle of Penrith in Cumberland and repaired that of Carlisle. At Nottingham, Warwick, York, and Middleham he built important edifices.”[23]

Another area where James III and Richard III differ is in the area of law and justice within their respective kingdoms. For most of James III’s reign, he had impressed upon the people an inability or unwillingness to administer any form of justice. He had a “record of arbitrary and, on occasions, illegal acts within Scotland itself, coupled with an apparent disregard for the monarch’s recognised duty of maintaining law and order.”[24] Complaints in July 1473 reveal a “concern at the king’s too ready granting of remissions and respites for serious crimes, including murder.”[25] While it had been previously remarked upon that both James III and Richard III occasionally turned a blind eye and pardoned members of the nobility for crimes, it appears that James III continued this trend across the majority of criminal cases. He simply could not be bothered to deal with this major pillar of fifteenth century kingship.

However, Richard III took a completely different stance. “Although his administration was profusely liberal, he checked corruption, reformed the public offices, and promoted economy in the service of the state.”[26] In addition, Richard was not averse to administering justice as he saw fit. An example of this was the swift execution by Richard of the duke of Buckingham after his failed rebellion in October 1483. In addition, Richard himself led the field at the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, illustrating that he was not afraid to fight for his kingdom. In fact, “it was generally reported that when defeat seemed certain he was urged to flee and answered that he would rather die a king than live in defeat.”[27]

In the end, all of these reasons combine to paint the picture about just why James III and Richard III were deposed. In James’s case, it seems that his inflated ego and lack of interest in the more mundane tasks of monarchy, such as administering justice and keeping the nobility happy, proved to be his undoing. Richard was a different story altogether. “As king he seems really to have studied his country’s welfare, passed good laws, endeavored to put an end to extortion, declined the free gifts offered to him by several towns, and declared he would rather have the hearts of his subjects than their money.”[28] All of this appears to be for naught, however, as it seems that his subjects never forgot or accepted the treatment of his nephews, which allowed him to take the throne in the first place. According to Sir Thomas More, when Richard asked the mayor of London why the people were not cheering for him while he was on procession, the mayor responded “parcase they perceyue you not well.”[29] It should be noted that when a usurper means to acquire the throne, they must “persuade a large majority of the men of power to go along with their decision. Otherwise, the successor or usurper laid himself open…as did Richard III, to his own removal.”[30]

Although both monarchs ascended to the throne through different avenues, and traveled down differing paths of kingship, they nevertheless both ended up at the same destination. In due course, both James III and Richard III lost the support of their nobility and subjects, ultimately resulting in deposition and death.

 

Bibliography

 

Primary sources:

Lumby, J. Rawson, ed., More’s History of King Richard III (Cambridge, 1883).

Mancinus, Dominicus, Armstrong, C.A.J., trans., The Usurpation of Richard the Third:

Ad Angelum Catonem de Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium Libellus (Oxford, 1969).

Secondary sources:

Dunham, William Huse, Jr., Wood, Charles T., ‘The Right to Rule in England:

Depositions and the Kingdom’s Authority, 1327-1485’, The American Historical Review, 81 (Oct., 1976), 738-761.

Fritze, Ronald H., ed., Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272-1485

(Westport, 2002).

Gairdner, James, The Life and Reign of Richard the Third (London, 1879).

Gairdner, James, ‘Did Henry VII Murder the Princes?’, The English Historical Review, 6

(Jul., 1891), 444-464 [accessed from Jstor on 5 Nov. 2006].

Hanham, Alison, Richard III and His Early Historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford, 1975).

MacDougall, Norman, James III: A Political Study (Edinburgh, 1982).

Markham, Clements R., Richard III: His Life and Character (London, 1906).